On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 10:15:21PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: >> Finally, as Steve pointed out, I'm sure the OSI would wish to maintain >> their own autonomy in determining if particular licenses are "open >> source", just as we in Debian need our own autonomy in doing so. > We could still do so based on identical documents. On the face of it, I don't see any reason why this isn't possible -- though, of course, our own *local* bureaucracy is such that it would likely take some time before the DFSG were ever modified. :-) >> I might suggest, however, you approach the LSB or other larger free >> software standards organizations regarding a community-wide definition >> of "free software", "open source", or whatever you want to call it. > The problem here is that it is *you* who is angry at *us*. We feel a > need to heal that rift, and by "we" I mean the boards of the Open > Source Initiative, Inc. and Software in the Public Interest, Inc. May I ask what the basis of that statement is? I for one am not in the least bit angry with the OSI. Is there some reason I should be? :D At the same time, I don't perceive the OSI as being directly relevant to the work that Debian does; nor do I see any reason it should be. You yourself said that the OSI cannot be arbitrary. While I wouldn't say that Debian's reading of the DFSG is "arbitrary", I do think it's important that Debian have the power to interpret the guidelines in the spirit in which they were intended, and not be held by law to a literal reading of the DFSG. >>> I'm inclined to believe that your second example is also a minor >>> issue, because if the software is DFSG-compliant in all other >>> respects, it should be possible to legally remove the click-wrap >>> requirement from the code -- just as you can charge someone a fee >>> for giving them GPL software, but you cannot prevent them from >>> giving it away for free once they have it. >> Hmm. Yes, I would think the Deiban maintainer would be able to strip >> the click-wrap, or if not, the software wouldn't really be DFSG-free >> anyhow, would it? > On what basis do you think you can remove objectionable terms of a > license? Where does it say that in the DFSG? Conversely, where does > it say in the DFSG that a license must not require click-wrap, or > indeed, any other type of affirmative assent? It's not a matter of being able to remove objectionable terms from the license; it's a matter of any license that contains such a term already failing to meet the requirements of the DFSG as we understand them, because the license must not unnecessarily restrict the creation of derived works. I think the GPL's requirement that a program display a disclaimer of warranty and copyright notice when run interactively is about the most that Debian developers are likely to concede as a restriction on the nature of the modifications; and some will concede that only because the GPL is grandfathered into the DFSG explicitly. Requiring that derivative works help the author enforce an EULA against users is pretty non-free, IMHO. Still, I don't see that it would *hurt* anything to spell this out in the DFSG; rather, I agree that it's better to make our intentions explicit. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgp_5o56Dn3ZN.pgp
Description: PGP signature